Jbit review iuhealth gait analysis

NeuroRehabilitation
and
Robotics
Motion
Analysis
NeuroScience
Center
355
West
16th
Street
Goodman
Hall
1078
Indianapolis,
IN
46038
Gait
Analysis
Report
The
purpose
of
this
Gait
Study
was
to
examine
possible
differences
or
changes
in
basic
Temporal-‐Spatial
parameters,
Joint
Kinematics,
Joint
and
Ground
Reaction
Forces
(GRF),
EMG
(Muscle
activation),
and
Joint
Moments
walking
with
and
without
the
MedPro.
The
data
collection
was
conducted
on
one
female
participant
with
no
known
orthopedic
or
neurological
conditions.
The
participant
was
familiar
with
wearing
the
device
so
no
familiarization
period
was
needed.
Multiple
conditions
were
collected
(and
will
be
analyzed
more
closely
later)
but
for
the
purpose
of
this
report,
the
focus
was
on
walking.
Additional
data
collected
was
going
up
and
down
stairs,
performing
an
overhead
squat,
performing
a
single
leg
step
test,
and
a
sit-‐to-‐stand.
Temporal-‐Spatial
Parameters
Walking
Speed
1:
1.48
±
0.042
m/s
Walking
Speed
2:
1.25
±
0.022
m/s
The
speed
of
the
current
foot
based
on
the
stride
time
and
stride
length
Left
Right
Stride
Length
1
1.50
±
0.040
m
1.53
±
0.027
m
Stride
Length
2
1.39
±
0.032
m
1.39
±
0.049
m
The
distance
along
the
line
of
progression
from
current
foot
contact
to
the
next
current
foot
contact.
Step
Length
1
0.76
±
0.028
m
0.75
±
0.018
m
Step
Length
2
0.68
±
0.033
m
0.70
±
0.011
m
The
distance
along
the
line
of
progression
from
opposite
foot
contact
to
current
foot
contact.
With
respect
to
temporal-‐spatial
parameters,
the
most
notable
changes
occurred
in
step
length
which
will
then
impact
changes
in
stride
length.
Due
to
the
nature
of
the
resistance
from
the
MedPro,
the
individual
adopted
more
of
a
mid-‐foot
strike
as
opposed
to
the
more
natural
heel
strike,
therefore
shortening
the
step
length.
A
stride
is
defined
as
3
consecutive
steps
i.e.
left-‐right-‐left.
One
stride,
from
initial
contact
to
initial
contact
on
the
same
side,
was
also
shorter
due
to
the
steps
being
shorter.
Shorter
steps
at
the
same
relative
speed
indicate
a
higher
turnover
rate.
Although
this
was
not
seen
wearing
the
device
it
was
a
result
of
not
controlling
the
speed
of
the
individual
walking.
Shorter
steps
mean
a
faster
turnover
rate,
resulting
in
less
time
in
contact
with
the
ground.
Although
this
was
seen,
I
am
not
sure
if
those
values
were
significant.
In
conclusion,
shorter
steps
mean
less
of
a
heel
strike
force
(less
dorsiflexion)
which
translates
up
the
chain
through
the
joints.

Joint
Kinematics
Most
notable
changes
in
Joint
Kinematics
(angles)
were
seen
in
the
sagittal
(side):
Left
Right
Red
Condition
1
Green
Condition
1
Blue
Condition
2
with
MedPro
Blue
Condition
2
with
MedPro
MedPro
places
individual
in
more
posterior
tilt
With
Medpro,
individual
has
less
flexion
in
the
hip
at
initial
contact,
while
having
more
hip
extension
during
stance
More
knee
flexion
at
initial
contact
equals
more
absorption
of
force
in
the
joint
(see
joint
forces)
Less
dorsiflexion

Ground
Reaction
Forces
Left
Right
Red
Condition
1
Green
Condition
1
Blue
Condition
2
with
MedPro
Blue
Condition
2
with
MedPro
The
peaks
of
the
forces
above
in
the
Z
direction
are
not
as
high
at
both
initial
contact
and
toe-‐off,
resulting
in
less
braking
and
acceleration
forces
creating
compression
on
joints.

Right
Side
Joint
Moments
Green
Condition
1
Blue
Condition
2
with
MedPro
Note:
Moments
can
be
defined
as
a
force
being
applied
some
distance
away
from
a
joint
(fulcrum),
causing
a
tendency
to
rotate
the
joint
in
the
direction
of
the
force.
Rule
of
thumb:
The
active
muscle
is
always
the
one
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
joint
to
the
GRF.
There
is
less
of
an
extensor
moment
because
the
hamstrings
are
not
actively
creating
the
internal
moment
and
the
quads
have
to
activate
more
to
overcome
assistance
of
the
device
acting
as
hamstrings.

Right
Side
Joint
Forces
Green
Condition
1
Blue
Condition
2
with
MedPro
All
forces
in
the
Z
(vertical)
direction
are
diminished
at
initial
contact,
mid-‐stance,
and
toe-‐off.
This
is
an
indication
of
less
impact
forces
(braking)
and
more
absorption
through
stance
phase
of
the
force.
Note
the
direction
of
the
forces
for
the
knee
and
hip
are
reverse
due
to
nature
of
the
Z
force
being
equal
but
“opposite”
in
direction
of
the
applied
force.

In
conclusion,
the
findings
of
this
study
do
suggest
some
changes
are
occurring
in
the
gait
characteristics
of
someone
walking
with
and
without
the
MedPro
trainer.
However,
IU
Health
cannot
make
claims
on
whether
these
changes
would
actually
happen
in
all
people
or
whether
the
changes
seen
can
be
labeled
as
significant
until
further
statistics
are
done.
In
my
opinion
the
data
presented
does
suggest
changes
are
occurring
and
warrants
a
further
look
into
the
other
conditions
as
well
as
collecting
data
on
more
than
one
subject.
Ideally
a
study
conducted
using
a
subject
with
known
OA
complete
a
gait
study
without
the
device
and
then
train
for
6
to
8
weeks
with
the
device
and
then
do
another
gait
study
without
the
device
to
see
if
training
with
the
device
actually
changed
gait
kinematics,
forces
and
muscle
activation.
Ultimately
you
would
then
want
to
look
at
multiple
people
running
through
this
protocol
as
well
as
having
a
control
group
who
didn’t
use
the
device
and
collected
data
pre/post-‐therapy
to
know
for
sure
if
the
hypothesized
changes
seen
in
those
who
used
the
device
truly
were
from
using
the
device
and
not
other
interventions
that
may
have
been
utilized
with
traditional
OA
rehab.
Jeff
W
Frame,
MS
Biomechanist
Coordinator
of
Motion
Analysis
Neurorehabilitation
and
Robotics
at
the
IU
Health
Neuroscience
Center

Jbit review iuhealth gait analysis

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (13)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Jbit review iuhealth gait analysis